This article is part of a comprehensive series covering the punitive articles of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). It is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Service members facing any UCMJ charge should consult a qualified military defense attorney.
Drinking isn’t illegal in the military. Being drunk while you’re supposed to be working is. Article 112 (10 U.S.C. § 912) draws this line with three distinct offenses that share a common principle: the military’s mission depends on every service member being capable of performing their duties, and self-induced incapacitation that compromises that capability is a criminal offense, not just a policy violation.
The MJA 2016 restructured the old drunkenness provisions into the current Article 112, consolidating what had previously been spread across old Articles 112 and 134 into a single article with clearly delineated offense categories. The pre-2019 version excluded sentinels and lookouts (they fell under old Article 113, now Article 95). Current Article 112 applies to all duty assignments.
Drunk on Duty, Drunk in Custody, Incapacitated on Duty
The MCM 2024 (Part IV, Paragraph 64) breaks Article 112 into three distinct offense categories.
Drunk on duty
Any person subject to the UCMJ who is found drunk while on duty. The prosecution must prove two things: the accused was on duty, and the accused was drunk at the time.
“Drunk” is defined through two alternative standards, either of which is sufficient. First, a blood alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath, or 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood. Second, intoxication sufficient to impair the rational and full exercise of mental or physical faculties. The threshold can be met through chemical testing or through behavioral observation. A service member who is visibly impaired, slurring speech, unable to maintain balance, unable to perform routine tasks, can be “drunk” for Article 112 purposes even without a breathalyzer. The behavioral standard matters because chemical testing isn’t always available, particularly in field or deployment environments.
“On duty” means actually performing an assigned military duty, not merely present on a military installation. A service member who gets drunk at the post bar on a day off hasn’t committed an Article 112 offense. The same service member who shows up drunk for a scheduled shift has. Context determines where the line falls: standing watch, performing a guard shift, operating in a duty status, staffing a command post, performing maintenance, or any other assigned military function.
Incapacitation for duty
Any person who, as a result of indulgence in any alcoholic beverage or any drug, is incapacitated for the proper performance of duty. This is broader than “drunk on duty” in a way that catches the hangover problem. A service member who drinks heavily the night before and reports for duty unable to function effectively has committed this offense even if their blood alcohol is below the legal threshold at the time of duty.
Functional capacity is what counts: can the service member properly perform their assigned duties? The cause must be prior voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs. Incapacitation from prescribed medication taken as directed wouldn’t qualify, the “indulgence” language implies voluntary overconsumption. The prosecution doesn’t need to prove the accused was drunk at the time of duty; they need to prove the accused was incapacitated for duty because of prior consumption.
Drunk prisoner
Any person who is a prisoner, whether confined as the result of a court-martial conviction or in pretrial confinement, and becomes drunk while in that status. This offense requires no duty element. Simply being a prisoner and becoming drunk is sufficient. The military’s custodial responsibility over prisoners includes controlling their sobriety, and a prisoner who obtains and consumes alcohol in confinement has committed a separate offense regardless of how the alcohol was acquired.
Punishment Differentiation and the Article 95 Connection
Maximum punishment for drunk on duty: bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and nine months’ confinement. For incapacitation for duty: forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for three months and three months’ confinement, with no punitive discharge. For drunk prisoner: the same as incapacitation.
The drunk-on-duty provision carries the harshest maximum because it represents the most direct threat to mission performance. The service member is present at the duty station and unable to function. Incapacitation carries a lower maximum, reflecting the difference between actively showing up drunk and being functionally impaired from prior consumption. The absence of a punitive discharge for incapacitation means the offense, while criminal, doesn’t carry the career-ending characterization that drunk on duty does.
Article 95 (Offenses by Sentinel or Lookout) provides enhanced punishment when the service member found drunk is a sentinel or lookout. A sentinel found drunk on post faces the Article 95 maximums, which in wartime include death, rather than the Article 112 maximums. The distinction is functional: sentinels bear a security responsibility where impairment can directly endanger lives. Article 112 handles the general case; Article 95 handles the category where the consequences of intoxication are most immediately dangerous.
Article 113 (Drunken or Reckless Operation) covers the separate question of operating vehicles, aircraft, or vessels while intoxicated. A service member who gets drunk and then drives has committed Article 113, not Article 112, because the gravamen of the offense shifts from incapacitation to operation. But a service member who gets drunk on duty and then drives a military vehicle may face both: Article 112 for the duty incapacitation and Article 113 for the vehicle operation.
The military sells alcohol at its own facilities and embeds drinking in its social traditions. Article 112 doesn’t prohibit that. What it prohibits, precisely, is letting consumption cross the line into inability to perform. That line runs through every version of this offense: drunk on duty, incapacitated for duty, disorderly while drunk. Each one marks a different point where personal choice collided with professional obligation, and in each case, the UCMJ sides with the obligation.
Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law: Article 112 covers three distinct incapacitation offenses: drunk on duty, drunk as a prisoner, and incapacitation through self-administered controlled substances on duty. It criminalizes self-induced incapacitation that compromises a service member’s ability to perform their duties.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ or need legal guidance regarding military justice matters, consult a qualified military defense attorney.